On War and Terrorism

The following was originally intended as a comment to a post made in ‘s journal. But it was too long, and I thought it might be of general interest. Guess who isn’t transcribing minutes like he ought to be:

I know you weren’t looking for comments, but I feel obliged to offer a few.

A founding philosophical basis of my arguments, which I suspect you will disagree with, is that war and military occupation begets terrorism.

1. I do think Gore would have done a better job than Bush. Mostly by failing to do some of the stupid stuff he did, like invading Iraq, and making the Patriot act. I don’t think he would have been perfect, or would have done what I wanted him to do, but I think he would have been less of an idiot.
2. Pearl Harbor was an act of war, and intended as such, organized and condoned by the Japanese government. Compare this to the events of september 11th. It was organized and executed by a global terrorist network, with no official governmental presence in any nation. Our attack on Afghanistan for sheltering the leadership of the organization may have been justifiable, and likely would have been done by Gore. I was opposed to that war, because of the aforementioned point. War as a response to terrorism is like Kerosene as a response to fire. I opposed the Iraq war because, as Congress found, there was no adequate intelligence to justify the war. The CIA produced questionable supporting intelligence after repeatedly denying the specific questions “what are Iraq’s wmd capabilities?” and “how are Iraq and Al Qaeda linked?” from top administration officials.
3. You may be able to kill some terrorists before they strike, but you may well turn their friends and family into terrorists in the process.
4. What evidence do you have to offer (other than his prior attacks on his own people, which the Republican led U.S. of the time certainly knew about and did nothing to stop, after encouraging the insurgents in the first place) of Iraq’s ties to terrorism? I’ve heard nothing of this. [Honestly, I have a rough confidence in this. It may well have happened under Clinton’s administration, but this is my understanding of it]
5. Re: Bush sitting for 7 minutes. An appropriate response might have been to immediately ask for more information. I personally view his inaction as relatively benign. I don’t think that he could have done anything more useful than what happened without his involvement, and, in light of his later actions, I almost wish he had never gotten up off that chair in that classroom.
6. No, I can’t say that I do know how Germany would react. But I will point out that in many places in the US, including NYC, you know, where the planes actually hit, there were anti-war demonstrations.
7. There’s a difference between defending oneself and extracting revenge. Defending oneself is preventing harm. Revenge is doing unto those who have done unto us. Going into afghanistan only saved lives if it stopped more terrorism than it started. I do not know the answer that one. I do know that going into Iraq has probably started more terrorism than it stopped. The people who flew those planes are dead. They died along with many innocent victims in the towers that day. Not something that many pro-war supporters comment on, but it has some important implications.
8. The plane trick will never work again. You’ve heard, same as me, about the people who brought #4 down from the inside. And the people who tackled the guy trying to light his shoe bomb. Bringing down the towers was predicated on the passive cooperation of the passengers and pilot. Next person who pulls out a boxcutter on a plane is dogmeat. My proposal for terrorism prevention post 9/11 was martial arts training and cell phones for all citizens. Taking what worked and improving on that.
9. So, life sucks. Bad shit happens. Thousands of people die from the flu, in the united states, each year. That’s just the flu. Then there’s cancer, drunk drivers, heart disease, etc. We can take another thousand 9/11’s, without losing a full percent of the US population. Keep in mind, that that particular thing won’t happen again, as I previously mentioned. This should allow us to calm down and think for a moment.

And we need to be calm and think about the goal here. We can afford to.

We want to end terrorism, that’s great. It’s also not going to happen. Terrorism, like certain theories of cancer, is a problem that springs up all on its own, but which can be increased or reduced through various circumstances. We can also take measures to protect ourselves. And reducing terrorism while protecting ourself from what we cannot reduce is the only sensible response to terrorism.

Terrorism is a political act, and as practiced recently (suicide bombers, 9/11 pilots) one of ultimate self-sacrifice. People have to have a cause to make them willing to do that sort of thing. What is motivating these extremist muslims? If they were doing it because they hated freedom, they’d be bombing the Netherlands. Possibly past US violent intervention in the area (and the continuing bombing under both Clinton and Bush administrations), support for Israel, a sense of disenfranchisement, and other things I can’t begin to fathom.

The Bush administration is right, this is a war for hearts and minds. But prison rape, artillery, and unilateral military occupation will win neither hearts nor minds.

We’d be dumbfucks not to work on sensible actions to prevent terrorism. I’m not advocating that we turn our backs to a proven threat. Violence in response to terrorism is a vicious cycle, though. War is an ineffective answer.